I thought the Hanson's training plan had some workouts at goal marathon pace. Did I misinterpret this? I trained for my last marathon using my goal marathon pace for my tempo runs, increasing distance as the plan progressed. I also did the speed work using the paces suggested for goal marathon time. This made the workouts very difficult and was sometimes unable to hit these paces for the prescribed distance. As training progressed I eventually was able to finish the workouts (although still very difficult) and ended up running my goal pace the entire marathon without too much difficulty. Is there a more efficient way to train? I ask because I have a more aggressive time in mind for my next marathon and I was planning (dreading) approaching it in a similar manner.

You should run your quality sessions by effort and not pace. You can still do Hanson's, just run the MP miles by effort instead.

I think you can run your workouts by goal pace and not just by effort, since you've proven yourself as a successful Hansons trainee: you ran by goal for your tempo runs, felt some struggles during training, but "ended up running my goal pace the entire marathon without too much difficulty...." mission accomplished!

That's what many who felt they succeeded describe with the Hansons training program. I've used the Hansons marathon program twice before, now in my third, and saw my time drop from 3:57 to 3:26 to 3:11. I also trained with the Hansons HM program. Each time I felt exactly as you did, but the payoff was that on race day I was evenly paced, felt like I was running hard enough but never struggled, and the only times I felt I was spent was at the finish line, after running the final 3 miles at close to my then 10-K paces, when I saw that I can not only hit my goals but cut it down a minute. (I wonder if that's because the 10K pace is also a regular feature of the Hansons program, for the "strength" sessions.)

As long as your "more aggressive" goal is a reasonable improvement target, you can again calibrate your next Hansons program paces based on that target and have a reasonable chance again of achieving that improvement. And if you were shooting for too much of an improvement, there are plenty of workouts, opportunities to find out in the training program for you to recalibrate. That is a good feature of the Hansons program other programs may not have as much: starting with the first few weeks there are regularly scheduled goal pace workouts of increasing distances, to drill the pace into your brain and muscles (thus the many testimonies of "evenly paced races" by satisfied Hansons runners), but equally importantly to allow you the ability to tell if your goal is too ambitious or too conservative.

With your previous Hansons training, you struggled but were "able to finish the workouts (although still very difficult)." So your target was aggressive, maybe at the limit of your reach but not beyond, and you improved throughout to be able to reach your target. If your next target is too aggressive, you might have difficulty doing the 6 mile tempos even after a few weeks of it, and then feel like you're getting killed even more without feeling stronger when the 7 mile tempo weeks start....that how you might know you need to dial back.

Agree with training as well as you can, and then running your race based on your fitness. I want to go sub-3 at Richmond in November, but I will run the race based on my fitness and my pace will be dictated by tuneup races near the end of my training cycle. If I'm not in sub-3 shape, then so be it, I'll keep training and try again. It's good to have a goal, but you can't train specifically to that goal, you just have to try to keep improving until you get there.

definitely interested in your thoughts, at the risk of this sounding like a rhetorical post....

I have always wondered: in your case, for example, how do you get into sub-3 shape if your training does not target a sub-3 goal? I am not being glib.... for me, this has always been a puzzle. I have generally chosen the "set a goal for the entire training program but be willing to recalibrate" path, where my goals are obviously targeting an ever-faster time.

I am interested in your thoughts since you advocate not training specifically toward a goal too strictly, yet you do have a goal, how you would train to maximize your chance of being ready for that goal.

It may be a function of my relative novice status (2.5 years of running, ever in my life), but so far I've been able to improve through setting faster and faster times without crashing and burning. I am hoping to learn from the overwhelming majority of voices here that advocates not training toward a target.

More specifically, if your goal is to go sub-3 for a PR, what kind of workouts would you do, what paces are you targeting for your speed and tempo and threshold, etc. sessions, and do you do some, many, or no goal-pace runs at 6:52 pace along the way? If you do not, then how will you design your training sessions to improve your chance of reaching your goal of 2:59 finish....definitely appreciate your thoughts.

definitely interested in your thoughts, at the risk of this sounding like a rhetorical post....

I have always wondered: in your case, for example, how do you get into sub-3 shape if your training does not target a sub-3 goal? I am not being glib.... for me, this has always been a puzzle. I have generally chosen the "set a goal for the entire training program but be willing to recalibrate" path, where my goals are obviously targeting an ever-faster time.

I am interested in your thoughts since you advocate not training specifically toward a goal too strictly, yet you do have a goal, how you would train to maximize your chance of being ready for that goal.

It may be a function of my relative novice status (2.5 years of running, ever in my life), but so far I've been able to improve through setting faster and faster times without crashing and burning. I am hoping to learn from the overwhelming majority of voices here that advocates not training toward a target.

More specifically, if your goal is to go sub-3 for a PR, what kind of workouts would you do, what paces are you targeting for your speed and tempo and threshold, etc. sessions, and do you do some, many, or no goal-pace runs at 6:52 pace along the way? If you do not, then how will you design your training sessions to improve your chance of reaching your goal of 2:59 finish....definitely appreciate your thoughts.

Part of it, at least for me, is setting realistic goals. I've done the same thing that you have, set a goal for a distance and see if I can get there, so far I've been able to hit most of them (missed my sub-40 10k, but I know what I did wrong and will correct it the next time I race that distance). Right now, my marathon PR is 3:14:07, and that was my first and only marathon and it was run a bit conservatively (I wanted to have a good experience, and didn't want to push too hard given my less than optimal training cycle). Given the factors that I will list below, I thought that sub-3 would be a realistic goal, but if I don't hit it in November, I think I will within the next cycle or two.

I am approaching my training and goal in two ways, running more miles (with quality) and losing weight. For the first portion, more miles and quality, I did a 10 week base building period where I averaged 58.5mpw, and this past week I started a Pfitzinger 18/70 plan. I've also only been running a little over two years, and up to this point, I haven't done any speed work, so the workouts in the Pfitz plan will my first exposure to quality work, other than long runs. Last year I averaged about 45mpw for the year, and due to a couple of illnesses, I only averaged 31mpw going into my marathon. So I think that the increase in mileage, and the addition of quality work, should result in some good improvements. I am basing my workout paces on my current fitness, not my goal pace. I have several short races that I will use throughout my training cycle to adjust training paces as needed.

The other part is weight loss. I was 195lbs for my 3:14 marathon, my goal for November is 170 or less. Daniels' spreadsheet puts me at a sub-3 based on the 25lb weight loss alone, given the same fitness. My fitness should be increased, so the weight loss will just aid in reaching my goal. I'm already down 15lbs and with 18 weeks to drop 10 more, I don't see any problem getting there. I see a lot of runners that put in decent mileage, but are carrying around the typical 20-30lbs extra (sometimes more) that a lot of people have. If they would focus on nutrition and drop that weight, I think it would help a lot, lighter is always faster. Obviously if a person is already very lean (i.e. - single digit bodyfat), then this might not be an option for them and they'd have to focus solely on improving through training.

I have a half marathon and a 10k in October that I will be using for tuneup races (the half might not happen due to work, but I'm hoping I can make it). I will race those all out and see what I end up with, then base my pace for Richmond off of that. If those races show that I'm not in sub-3 shape, then I won't try to go sub-3. But I think that if I have a good training cycle (re: injury free lol) and hit my weight loss goal, that I should be fairly solid for a sub-3.

The numbers (goal/pace/mpw) could be different for any given person, but I think that the basic concepts of increased training stress, with proper recovery (the most important part), and a bit of weight loss, should show improvements. Of course you also have to take into account where the person is in their running career. Being a fairly new runner, I'm still enjoying the newb gains, a more experienced runner probably won't be looking to knock 15+mins off of their marathon PR. Also, each person will respond differently to the same training. There's another guy in the sub-3 training thread who has the same marathon PR as I do, has been running about as long, is doing the same training program, and we're running the same race in November, it'll be interesting to see what kind of results we both have.

Midas - what training philosophy do you use where you can just startrunning 15 seconds/mile faster than your current fitness? I've used pfitz,Hansons, and Daniels and they'd all be impossible if I just said I'm goingto pretend I can run 15 seconds faster than recent race times indicate.

Agree with training as well as you can, and then running your race based on your fitness. I want to go sub-3 at Richmond in November, but I will run the race based on my fitness and my pace will be dictated by tuneup races near the end of my training cycle. If I'm not in sub-3 shape, then so be it, I'll keep training and try again. It's good to have a goal, but you can't train specifically to that goal, you just have to try to keep improving until you get there.

Just skimmed through the posts (too many words and quotes) but I like your straight forward answer.

My first sub3 happened by surprise...my previous 4 marathons had been 3:09/3:09/3:09/3:08 and I was desperate to go sub3, but looking back my paces were too fast. The next cycle I upped my mileage and slowed the pace right down..loads of hilly runs at close to 9min/miles and over. Didn't do any GMP runs and 2 weeks out I ran a 1:23 half (6min PR)and followed it up with a 2:57 marathon (11min PR). Just keep plugging away!

Midas - what training philosophy do you use where you can just startrunning 15 seconds/mile faster than your current fitness? I've used pfitz,Hansons, and Daniels and they'd all be impossible if I just said I'm goingto pretend I can run 15 seconds faster than recent race times indicate.

Anything on a Daniels program even4 seconds/mile faster would put me in thehospital.

Simply put, most coaches design plans with paces prescribed at your currentfitness level. Except for short runs at gmp, I can't think of a singlecommon workout that is normally prescribed otherwise.

It really depends where you are as a runner on the training 'spectrum'. Newer runners generally experience more rapid progress, just because they have so much more room for improvement. Shaving :15 off a pace is a lot easier if you're starting from a 12:00/mile 5K pace vs. a 5:00/mile 5K pace.

Lots of good advice here. Thanks. I am trying to take 9 minutes off my previous marathon time. I'll start my workouts with what I think my current fitness level is and try to up it to goal pace later in the plan. I will be using Hanson's 60-80 20 week plan.

Midas - what training philosophy do you use where you can just startrunning 15 seconds/mile faster than your current fitness? I've used pfitz,Hansons, and Daniels and they'd all be impossible if I just said I'm goingto pretend I can run 15 seconds faster than recent race times indicate.

Anything on a Daniels program even4 seconds/mile faster would put me in thehospital.

Simply put, most coaches design plans with paces prescribed at your currentfitness level. Except for short runs at gmp, I can't think of a singlecommon workout that is normally prescribed otherwise.

Like RunDad says, it's a lot easier to get faster when you are slow, but that doesn't mean you can't go faster if you're not reasonable.

Why can't you run 15 seconds faster? What I see in these forums is an infatuation with miles run per week. Although this higher training stress can lead to higher fitness, there is another component that can lead to higher fitness - higher intensity.

To do that, you may have to run less initially. For example to go from 4:18 to 3:43, I just downloaded a training plan from the internet and followed it and added some to it. My previous Z2 (easy) pace was 10:30 - 11:00 min/mile and I could do that for the 18-20 miles. To go sub 4:00, I needed to run 9:00 / mile. So I started doing my long runs at 9:00 pace, and my threshold runs at 8:00 and intervals at 6:30 pace. At first 8 mile long run at 9:00 pace was tough (more like a tempo), but just adding a 1/2 -1 mile per week to it and doing some other quality runs and adding some bike cross training to it, I got my mileage up to 20 miles at that pace over a couple month period. Thresholds at 8:00 became easier so I started doing them at 7:30 and added Tempo runs at 8:00 pace (Z3 - golden zone for me, "no man's land" is what I hear you guys say) up to 12 miles. As my long runs at 9:00 pace got easier, I started adding some incline on treadmill to it and started running them at 1%, then 1.5%.

As you can see, you can back off and kind of start fresh with a base that you already have and always keep adding stimuli to increase the fitness. That whole process can take 24-36 wks though but definitely worth the work.

Now, that is a serious jump from 11:00 to 9:00, and I'm not saying you can go from 7:00 to 6:00 pace, but you can do the same things going from 7:00 long pace to 6:50 or 6:45.

You can stay comfortable or you can work and see results.

I am one of those that doesn't get injured much and can run through an occasional tendonitis. You have to know your body, and if you are injury prone, then be less aggressive.

I think it is great to pick a goal to work towards in a marathon, provided it's an achievable goal, that you are physically capable of running (with training). It's good to have something to shoot for, and to keep you motivated to keep pounding the pavement. You can also pick your paces based on that goal, but that is NOT the most efficient way of training. Different training runs have different purposes. Long runs, to increase endurance, speedwork to improve VO2, tempo to improve your body's ability to clear lactic acid, and so on. IF you do these workout's in the correct zone for your current fitness, then you will get the most improvement given the effort that you put into them. That's not to say that you won't continue to improve running at paces prescribed by a random goal, but it is not the most efficient way of training. AND also if you are training at paces that are too fast for your current fitness and ability, you are at greater risk to be injured.

Why can't you run 15 seconds faster? What I see in these forums is an infatuation with miles run per week. Although this higher training stress can lead to higher fitness, there is another component that can lead to higher fitness - higher intensity.

Are you a crossfitter? You're using their straw man argument. Nobody does just low intensity running. I'm a 65 mpw runner. Last week my average pace was very slow, about 100 seconds slower than MP. That's what a crossfitter sees. They don't realize that I also did a series of 200s and 400s at 4:55 - 5:00 pace (37s and 75s respectively), an intense set of hill sprints, and a cruise interval session with sets of 3200s at 5:55 pace (followed by more 200s at 37s). Those paces are prescribed based on my current fitness level. I wouldn't want to (and maybe couldn't) do them faster. If I did that at my "goal" fitness level, I'd just be injured and slow.

Now, that is a serious jump from 11:00 to 9:00, and I'm not saying you can go from 7:00 to 6:00 pace, but you can do the same things going from 7:00 long pace to 6:50 or 6:45.

If your goal is to run your long runs faster, run your long runs faster. If your goal is to run faster in races, run your long runs at an appropriate pace.

Why can't you run 15 seconds faster? What I see in these forums is an infatuation with miles run per week. Although this higher training stress can lead to higher fitness, there is another component that can lead to higher fitness - higher intensity.

Are you a crossfitter? You're using their straw man argument. Nobody does just low intensity running. I'm a 65 mpw runner. Last week my average pace was very slow, about 100 seconds slower than MP. That's what a crossfitter sees. They don't realize that I also did a series of 200s and 400s at 4:55 - 5:00 pace (37s and 75s respectively), an intense set of hill sprints, and a cruise interval session with sets of 3200s at 5:55 pace (followed by more 200s at 37s). Those paces are prescribed based on my current fitness level. I wouldn't want to (and maybe couldn't) do them faster. If I did that at my "goal" fitness level, I'd just be injured and slow.

Now, that is a serious jump from 11:00 to 9:00, and I'm not saying you can go from 7:00 to 6:00 pace, but you can do the same things going from 7:00 long pace to 6:50 or 6:45.

If your goal is to run your long runs faster, run your long runs faster. If your goal is to run faster in races, run your long runs at an appropriate pace.

You can stay comfortable or you can work and see results.

You've got no idea.

Am I a crossfitter? I am a lot of things. I love running, biking, tennis, roller blading, and long walks on the beach. But you make it sound like it is a bad thing.

Seriously, you are a fast guy Frank, and I think we all do hill training and intervals and tempos, but is it that difficult to imagine that there may be more than one way to skin a cat?

But I think we are diverting from the subject. All I was trying to say is that I believe it is possible to train for a certain goal IF that goal is reasonable. The body will follow where the mind goes. If you disagree, then I'm not sure what else to say.

Why can't you run 15 seconds faster? What I see in these forums is an infatuation with miles run per week.

You are one funny man... What I actually see on these forums pretty often, especially from newbies and beginners is an infatuation with higher intensity training, kind of RLRF school - or in other words - do less get more - or in other words "I am smarter than anybody else on these forums". You get excited with higher intensity training and at the end, if you still want to progress, you will get disenchanted with that higher intensity low mileage stuff and get to the balanced method which brings you results - higher mileage with some intensity. Higher intensity alone will only bring you to the first level and if you want to move to the next level you will also have to engage so hated by you miles.

Having a SMART goal is always a good thing. Having an unrealistic goal is a recipe for disaster.

A SMART goal would be based on your current fitness but would be one that stretched you and motivated you to improve. Without it most people would flounder along without any motivation to stretch and improve and would end up stagnating. Without it you might as well not set training paces at all but just go out and run your runs however you like and then run the marathon on the day and be satisfied with whatever time you end up with.

When to set your SMART goal is up for debate but generally speaking a long term goal will be broken up into many shorter term stepping stone goals. Those stepping stone goals will give you an indication of whether or not your long term goal is achievable in the time frame you initially set. If you are hitting all those shorter term goals then all is good, if not then your longer term goal and/or its time frame will need to be adjusted. A commonly suggested shorter term goal is to race a HM as fast as you can maybe 6-8 weeks before your planned marathon. The completion of that goal is likely to give you a good indication if your goal for the marathon is achievable or not.

As for current fitness Vs a specific goal time, I admit to being a complete novice, but it seems to me that if you always run only to your current fitness you will not stress your body to make adaptations. So to my way of thinking it is important to find the balance between stressing your body enough to improve without stressing it so much that you simply can't sustain the training. That's where a SMART goal comes into play.

What I actually see on these forums pretty often, especially from newbies and beginners is an infatuation with higher intensity training, kind of RLRF school - or in other words - do less get more - or in other words "I am smarter than anybody else on these forums".

Well, I don't want to be presumptuous, but not only am I actually smarter than anybody else on this forum, so are you!...

Why can't you run 15 seconds faster? What I see in these forums is an infatuation with miles run per week.

You are one funny man... What I actually see on these forums pretty often, especially from newbies and beginners is an infatuation with higher intensity training, kind of RLRF school - or in other words - do less get more - or in other words "I am smarter than anybody else on these forums". You get excited with higher intensity training and at the end, if you still want to progress, you will get disenchanted with that higher intensity low mileage stuff and get to the balanced method which brings you results - higher mileage with some intensity. Higher intensity alone will only bring you to the first level and if you want to move to the next level you will also have to engage so hated by you miles.

You are the funny man. You are offended by a statement without even thinking about what I said. I never said more intensity and less mileage. I never said I know more than you folks.

You don't even know who I am, how long I've been running, how much I run or don't run, if I am dumb or smart. Yet you come here and throw insults when I never said anything to anyone. "The forum is infatuated with weekly mileage" is all I said. That is a factual statement and it doesn't take a genius to realize it when reading around here. It doesn't say it is wrong or right. I didn't say it is the wrong way to train. So why are you so defensive about it?

The guy totally lost me - I need to understand what he sees as comfortable and what is work in his interpretation...

What I meant by that is that we get into a pattern where I do my long slow runs at x pace and I do my tempos at y pace and my thresholds at z pace and it doesn't get reassessed appropriately. To give you an example, suppose you are basing your E pace based on recent 5k times.

So you run your first 5K at 20:00 and based on that you are supposed to do your E pace at 8:33/mile and you follow the JD plan for 3 months and you do another 5K and this time you go 19:45. You go back to your VDOT table and it says that you do your E pace at 8:27/mile. Assuming one does 15 seconds of improvement with this plan in 3 months, the E pace didn't change much. If you go outside and run, there is no way you can tell the difference between a 8:33 vs 8:27 pace. So in effect you are running the same pace.

Now suppose you are supposed to do you E runs in zone 2. Now lets say that equates to a HR of 140-155 for simplicity sake. You run your E pace if 8:33 and you notice that the HR is 144 avg. If you can go 8:20 pace, which is a noticeable change when running, and you are in the upper zone 2 (150-155 in this case), then you are still doing an easy run but because of the higher stimulus AND you are staying in aerobic zone, the results are accelerated.

Why can't you run 15 seconds faster? What I see in these forums is an infatuation with miles run per week.

You are one funny man... What I actually see on these forums pretty often, especially from newbies and beginners is an infatuation with higher intensity training, kind of RLRF school - or in other words - do less get more - or in other words "I am smarter than anybody else on these forums". You get excited with higher intensity training and at the end, if you still want to progress, you will get disenchanted with that higher intensity low mileage stuff and get to the balanced method which brings you results - higher mileage with some intensity. Higher intensity alone will only bring you to the first level and if you want to move to the next level you will also have to engage so hated by you miles.

You are the funny man. You are offended by a statement without even thinking about what I said. I never said more intensity and less mileage. I never said I know more than you folks.

You don't even know who I am, how long I've been running, how much I run or don't run, if I am dumb or smart. Yet you come here and throw insults when I never said anything to anyone. "The forum is infatuated with weekly mileage" is all I said. That is a factual statement and it doesn't take a genius to realize it when reading around here. It doesn't say it is wrong or right. I didn't say it is the wrong way to train. So why are you so defensive about it?

I am not offended at all by your statements because that would mean I consider there is a lot of sense in them.

Re your comment that I should know your before writing a response, you kidding right?

What kind of response should I write to a person who thinks that going from 11:00 to 9:00 is a serious jump, but going from 7:00 to 6:45 is nothing to write about. What can I say to a person who trains for sub 4 and runs long runs at 9 mpm and intervals at 6:30 mpm - man you are seriously training on some strange ideas. What can I say to a person who writes this:

...

I downloaded a marathon training plan from the web. I have no idea whose it is, but it isn't Hudson, Pfitz, or JD.

...

or thinks that biking can replace running and who is about 37 yo .

After that you seriously think that I need to defend anything or to be offended? You kidding yourself, seriously. You made a great progress so far and seems like a runner with some good future but you will probably find out that times of 36 minutes improvements are over and going from 7 mpm pace to 6:45 is a pretty big jump. And if your are not close to 3 hours by now after running 55 mpw, you will have to become "infatuated" with mileage to get closer to 3 hours mark. But wait, yes, I forgot - I have no idea if you want to get there - sorry. And please - don't get offended by all the above - it's just a conversation between people who have no idea whom they are talking to...

Maybe that's because higher mileage correlates directly to faster race times? Sure, a few people can get faster on low mileage, but the majority of people need the mileage to improve. Higher mileage + some quality > lower mileage + more quality. It's been proven by coaches and runners all over the world.

Obviously if a person's body can't handle higher mileage, then that's something that they have to take into consideration, but that doesn't mean that training with less mileage is a better way to go, it's just the only option that person has. When I get to that point one day, I will accept it, and run within my limits, but until then I'll keep increasing the mileage and reaping the benefits.

You have to build slowly and be reasonable with your goals. I was on top of the world after the grammys in '91 and launched the Hammer Don't Hurt Em Tour in '92 with the biggest expectations in the world. I brought a 50+ person entourage with me to every show. Problem was I didn't sell enough tickets to cover the entourage and I was bankrupt. Be conservative.

All my life I wanted to make it to the top. Some said I wouldn't, they told me no, but I didn't stop.

Now suppose you are supposed to do you E runs in zone 2. Now lets say that equates to a HR of 140-155 for simplicity sake. You run your E pace if 8:33 and you notice that the HR is 144 avg. If you can go 8:20 pace, which is a noticeable change when running, and you are in the upper zone 2 (150-155 in this case), then you are still doing an easy run but because of the higher stimulus AND you are staying in aerobic zone, the results are accelerated.

I hope that makes sense. It does to me.

You really should write a book about running as you just stumbled upon an idea that no other great coach advocates. Why didn't we all think of this before? I guess it doesn't matter that thousands of others before us have tried the same idea and turned into a disaster. None of that matters because "it makes sense to me."

Wow. Why do some feel that they have found the way, that magical way to train?

"Faster than Daniels" a groundbreaking follow up to my first book "7 Minute Abs"!

Originally Posted by RunMapleRun:

You can stay comfortable or you can work and see results.

Anyone else seeing just a little irony here? Just me?

Well done. "Listen son, there aren't any shortcuts in life. You need to work hard, get a good education, work for 45 years or so, and maybe you'll have enough to vacation to Florida every second year" "But Dad, I just saw you touch that apple and..." "Shut up prince, I'm not done talking yet!"

Originally Posted by King Midas:

The sad part is that all of you are probably nice people. This thread is out of control now. So I am done with it.

You're taking things way too personally. You came out and said we are a bunch of lazy bums that want to be comfortable instead of working hard and getting faster, got a couple of snide remarks in return, then dropped your kidney dialysis card and took your ball and went home. A slightly thicker skin would be beneficial when surfing the interwebs.

Originally Posted by Too Legit 2 Quit:

You have to build slowly and be reasonable with your goals. I was on top of the world after the grammys in '91 and launched the Hammer Don't Hurt Em Tour in '92 with the biggest expectations in the world. I brought a 50+ person entourage with me to every show. Problem was I didn't sell enough tickets to cover the entourage and I was bankrupt. Be conservative.

Tough break man. It's great that you are comfortable talking about your mistakes to educate the kids.

Having a SMART goal is always a good thing. Having an unrealistic goal is a recipe for disaster.

A SMART goal would be based on your current fitness but would be one that stretched you and motivated you to improve. Without it most people would flounder along without any motivation to stretch and improve and would end up stagnating. Without it you might as well not set training paces at all but just go out and run your runs however you like and then run the marathon on the day and be satisfied with whatever time you end up with.

When to set your SMART goal is up for debate but generally speaking a long term goal will be broken up into many shorter term stepping stone goals. Those stepping stone goals will give you an indication of whether or not your long term goal is achievable in the time frame you initially set. If you are hitting all those shorter term goals then all is good, if not then your longer term goal and/or its time frame will need to be adjusted. A commonly suggested shorter term goal is to race a HM as fast as you can maybe 6-8 weeks before your planned marathon. The completion of that goal is likely to give you a good indication if your goal for the marathon is achievable or not.

As for current fitness Vs a specific goal time, I admit to being a complete novice, but it seems to me that if you always run only to your current fitness you will not stress your body to make adaptations. So to my way of thinking it is important to find the balance between stressing your body enough to improve without stressing it so much that you simply can't sustain the training. That's where a SMART goal comes into play.

Running to current fitness, it's really talking about creating a vocabulary that can be used by coaches to prescribe workouts to their runners. They can say "go run 12 sets of 80 seconds at slightly slower than your vo2 max pace" or "3 sets of 12 minutes at slightly faster than lactate threshold". For most people, that makes no sense and it's easier to translate these into equivalent workouts using current race paces (because that's what runners understand). So the coach will say "go run 12x400 @5k race pace" or "3x2 miles at 1 hour race pace". The coach took a prescribed workout and chose to present it to you using your current race pace. So it makes absolutely no sense to run these at goal fitness because that's not what they were designed for.

Another example: The coach could easily and equivalently have said one of these two things "Go run 10 miles at current MP" or "Go run 10 miles at goal MP + 10 seconds". It doesn't really matter since the workout is basically identical, but it also doesn't make any sense to tell someone to run faster than current fitness when the workouts are prescribed at current fitness (or more accurately, translated into the runners current race times as a communication mechanism). This is what Midas is suggesting.

Running to current fitness, it's really talking about creating a vocabulary that can be used by coaches to prescribe workouts to their runners. They can say "go run 12 sets of 80 seconds at slightly slower than your vo2 max pace" or "3 sets of 12 minutes at slightly faster than lactate threshold". For most people, that makes no sense and it's easier to translate these into equivalent workouts using current race paces (because that's what runners understand). So the coach will say "go run 12x400 @5k race pace" or "3x2 miles at 1 hour race pace". The coach took a prescribed workout and chose to present it to you using your current race pace. So it makes absolutely no sense to run these at goal fitness because that's not what they were designed for.

Another example: The coach could easily and equivalently have said one of these two things "Go run 10 miles at current MP" or "Go run 10 miles at goal MP + 10 seconds". It doesn't really matter since the workout is basically identical, but it also doesn't make any sense to tell someone to run faster than current fitness when the workouts are prescribed at current fitness (or more accurately, translated into the runners current race times as a communication mechanism). This is what Midas is suggesting.

Ok I get it now. The idea is that a pace that is based on your current fitness is worked out but that pace is designed to improve your fitness.

I guess I just don't like the terminology of "training to current fitness" as that seems to suggest to me that you are running within what you are currently comfortable with and able to do. Like if you ran your last marathon at 3:30 and trained "to current fitness" then you can expect your next marathon to be run at 3:30 as well.

I guess I just don't like the terminology of "training to current fitness" as that seems to suggest to me that you are running within what you are currently comfortable with and able to do. Like if you ran your last marathon at 3:30 and trained "to current fitness" then you can expect your next marathon to be run at 3:30 as well.

But that's just terminology and my personal dislike/misunderstanding.

Whereas to me, the idea that one could train at anything greater than current fitness is the equivalent of, say, giving 110%!

yes as Ilanarama says.Measurable workouts like intervals and tempos have to be done at current fitness or you just dont complete them. If they turn out a little faster than last time then thats likely a fitness increase.

I guess I just don't like the terminology of "training to current fitness" as that seems to suggest to me that you are running within what you are currently comfortable with and able to do. Like if you ran your last marathon at 3:30 and trained "to current fitness" then you can expect your next marathon to be run at 3:30 as well.

But that's just terminology and my personal dislike/misunderstanding.

Whereas to me, the idea that one could train at anything greater than current fitness is the equivalent of, say, giving 110%!